The ‘Principal’s Office’ Crisis: Netanyahu Battles Hardliners to Save His Government and Trump’s Peace Plan
In a dramatic move signaling a moment of truth for Israel’s political stability, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called an urgent, closed-door meeting with his two most volatile coalition partners: Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. This impromptu summit, dubbed by insiders as the “principal’s office” meeting, was necessitated by the rapid acceleration of the Trump-backed 20-point Gaza peace plan—a framework that offers a path to end the current war but threatens to implode Netanyahu’s fragile, far-right-dependent government.
The gathering was not about casual policy review; it was an existential attempt by the Prime Minister to impose party discipline and manage the furious internal backlash against a sweeping diplomatic initiative that his hardline flank views as a national betrayal. The stakes could not be higher: the survival of the governing coalition, the future of the Gaza Strip, and the core security relationship with a powerful former U.S. President determined to claim a legacy-defining victory.
The Contentious Core of the Trump Plan
The American-endorsed proposal, announced shortly after a joint appearance by Trump and Netanyahu, lays out a detailed and ambitious roadmap for a complete cessation of hostilities. Its core provisions directly contradict the maximalist war goals espoused by Smotrich and Ben-Gvir:
1. Immediate & Verified Ceasefire: An end to active combat operations upon acceptance by both Israel and Hamas.
2. Hostage Release: The swift return of all Israeli hostages, alive or deceased, within a tight 72-hour timeframe.
3. Phased Israeli Pullback: A staged withdrawal of Israeli military forces from deep inside the Gaza Strip, though Israel is expected to retain long-term security control of key perimeter areas.
4. Dismantling of Hamas: A commitment to the demilitarization of Gaza and the decommissioning of Hamas military infrastructure, with an amnesty provision for members who commit to peaceful co-existence.
5. New Governance: The establishment of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian transitional authority in Gaza, supervised by an international “Board of Peace” (reportedly headed by Donald Trump), which would eventually lead to new elections.
While Netanyahu has publicly signaled support for the plan’s general outline—especially the provisions for hostage release and Hamas’s military dismantlement—he has immediately begun maneuvering to neutralize its most politically damaging clauses. His strategy involves avoiding a single, up-or-down cabinet vote on the entire 20-point package. Instead, sources indicate he is attempting to isolate the universally popular component—the hostage exchange deal (which involves releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the Israeli captives)—for separate approval. This avoids a direct challenge to his far-right partners on the issues of staged withdrawal and future Gaza governance.
The Hardliners’ Rage: ‘Weakness’ and ‘Betrayal’
The reason for the closed-door meeting is simple: Smotrich, the Finance Minister and leader of the Religious Zionism party, and Ben-Gvir, the National Security Minister and head of the Otzma Yehudit party, are the firewalls against any compromise that they perceive as short-circuiting a “total victory.”
Itamar Ben-Gvir openly attacked the framework as being “full of holes” and insufficient to safeguard Israel’s security, arguing that the Prime Minister agreed to a “flawed deal” under international pressure. His criticism focuses on the amnesty for some Hamas members and the limited nature of the military presence outlined in the staged withdrawal. For his base, the war must end with Hamas utterly defeated and a permanent, overt Israeli security presence established across the entire strip.
Bezalel Smotrich escalated the rhetorical conflict, denouncing the framework as a “resounding diplomatic failure.” He argues that any arrangement that allows for a technocratic Palestinian body—which he fears will be a Trojan horse for the Palestinian Authority or even a reconstituted Hamas—is a betrayal. Furthermore, he contends that the plan rewards terrorism by mandating a large-scale prisoner exchange and destroys the deterrence Israel has spent months trying to rebuild through military action. His deep ideological commitment to re-establishing Israeli settlements in Gaza makes any proposed withdrawal an anathema.
The Dual Existential Crisis for Netanyahu
Netanyahu’s position is an unprecedented balancing act, forcing him to weigh external diplomatic necessity against internal political survival—a struggle for the healthy functioning of his government.
The Trump Factor (External Pressure)
For Donald Trump, the Gaza plan is more than a diplomatic initiative; it is a legacy project and a campaign trophy. A successful peace deal would allow him to claim he achieved what the current administration could not, instantly rewriting the geopolitical map and validating his brand as the ultimate global dealmaker. Defying Trump would not only stall the deal but risk alienating Israel’s most powerful and potentially future ally, a consequence Netanyahu cannot afford while Israel still relies on Washington for weapons, diplomatic cover, and international legitimacy. Trump’s pressure is intense: accept the deal, or risk being blamed for its failure.
The Coalition Factor (Internal Pressure)
Netanyahu’s coalition rests on a razor-thin majority secured by the support of the very hardline parties he is now attempting to placate. If either Smotrich or Ben-Gvir pulls their parties out of the government in protest over the peace deal, the coalition will collapse, triggering new elections. Given his current unpopularity and ongoing legal challenges, new elections are arguably Netanyahu’s greatest political risk. Thus, the choice is stark: lose his far-right flank and fall from power, or reject the Trump plan and jeopardize the release of the hostages and the essential relationship with the United States.
The Crossroads Moment
The closed-door meeting represents a crossroads moment for all three leaders:
• For Netanyahu: Can he use his political skills to persuade or coerce his partners into abstaining from a critical vote, perhaps by extracting last-minute security concessions from the US or securing an agreement to indefinitely delay the most contentious components of the plan (such as the pathway to Palestinian elections)? His goal is not to convince them to support the plan, but merely to agree not to sink it.
• For Smotrich and Ben-Gvir: They are battling a global diplomatic tide. If they continue to shout “purity” and tank the deal, they risk being blamed by the Israeli public (especially the hostage families) for blocking the return of the captives. They also risk being sidelined by Netanyahu, who may be prepared to form a temporary alternative coalition with opposition parties to pass the hostage exchange if their intransigence threatens the government’s existence. The question is whether they will swallow the pill of compromise or embrace the political martyrdom of opposition.
The immediate future of the Gaza conflict hinges on the outcome of this political drama. If Netanyahu fails to tame his coalition partners, Israel’s deep internal fractures will be fully exposed to the world, potentially providing Hamas and other regional actors with renewed leverage and stalling the most significant peace initiative in years before it can even be fully implemented. The “healthy” path for Israel—securing the hostages and maintaining strategic alliances—requires Netanyahu to win this high-stakes internal negotiation.
Footage Charlie Kirk has been shot
Charlie Kirk has been shot
